Talk:LSWR N15 class

LSWR N15 class has been listed as one of the good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Review: No date specified. To provide a date use: {{GA|insert date in any format here}}. (Reviewed version).

Trains: in UK / Locomotives B‑class Mid‑importance

Trains Portal

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Trains, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to rail transport on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. See also: WikiProject Trains to do list and the Trains Portal.TrainsWikipedia:WikiProject TrainsTemplate:WikiProject Trainsrail transport

B

This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

Mid

This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Associated projects or task forces:
/
	This article is supported by WikiProject UK Railways.
	This article is supported by the Locomotives task force.

King Arthur Unassessed

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject King Arthur, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of King Arthur, the Arthurian era and related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.King ArthurWikipedia:WikiProject King ArthurTemplate:WikiProject King ArthurKing Arthur
???	This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
July 12, 2007	Good article nominee	Listed

~~References and completion to follow~~.Bulleid Pacific 20:00, 20 April 2007 (UTC) --Bulleid Pacific 16:47, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~Correction of loco details to follow~~. --Bulleid Pacific 16:47, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First attempt GA nom questions...

Another editor removed this article from GAC earlier today leaving only "quick-fail" in the edit summaries. I left a note on that editor's talk page to ask why. Slambo (Speak) 13:20, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This article quick failed on GA criteria because it does not cite the sources of the facts like weight and dimension. OhanaUnited 13:22, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As regards to infobox data sources, please see section 'References/Footnotes' for details of notability. --Bulleid Pacific 09:53, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

GA nomination passed

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

{{subst:#if:|

{{{overcom}}}|}}

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
{{subst:#if:|{{{1com}}}|}}
It is factually accurate and verifiable, as shown by a source spot-check.
a (reference section): b (inline citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):
{{subst:#if:|{{{2com}}}|}}
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
{{subst:#if:|{{{3com}}}|}}
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
{{subst:#if:|{{{4com}}}|}}
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.:
{{subst:#if:|{{{5com}}}|}}
It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
{{subst:#if:|{{{6com}}}|}}
Overall:
Pass/Fail:
{{subst:#if:|{{{7com}}}|}}

Reasons for verdict and suggestions: The article is written well, with a good amount of information, broad coverage of the entire history of the train, with good and fair use of images. A single complaint:

Section 2a - Although the article has references for the statements in this article, it would be preferable to place them more liberally throughout the article. Ideally, each statement should have an accompanying reference, rather than have the one reference apply to a huge swathe of text, especially in the infobox. The lead section needs referenced!

However, this is not enough for me to fail the article as it does provide verification of all the facts, even if I had to work a bit to make sure! Well done with the article, and keep up the good work! Mouse Nightshirt | talk 13:38, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]